Relying solely upon standardized examinations and usual forms of paper and pencil tests has been shown to possess severe limitations when used in assessing mathematical progress. Large numbers of students score high on such tests, both teacher made and standardized, yet still fail to possess essential conceptual understandings. Due to pressures put upon instructors for high scores these tests have come to shape student experiences and curriculum toward an emphasis on rote learning and algorithmic approaches to problem solving.This dissertation investigated the relationship between Student-Problem (S-P) Curve theory and Structured Interviews, two alternative multi-source evaluation techniques. In addition, it investigated the uses classroom teachers made of the information.Student assessment and process/concept data were gathered at the beginning, middle, and end of a school year for a group of six fifth and sixth grade instructors. These data were supplemented with interviews with the teachers and administrators concerning their classroom processes and uses made of the evaluative information.Results indicate that although the groups proposed by S-P theory and that of the Structured Interview are nearly similar, there are important differences in the information which each provides. The S-P information, far from replacing the individual instructor judgment, is a powerful aid to professional decision making. In addition, it was found that in actual use both sources of information were at times placed at secondary importance to personal data acquired in the course of working with the students themselves and the political nature of the classroom-community interaction.